Further proof UN Worthless!!

Originally posted by Strangerous
Pavil - that logic only seems to apply when the UN disagrees with the US.

Look up the amount of times the US has used its vote to veto resolutions against Israel - do you think the system is all wrong in that instance? The US never bleats about the UN when it suits them / votes their way.

The whole UN system was designed around concensus, without that no approval is given and any prohibited/unapproved action illegal. That's the system - it's doing what it was designed to do.

It goes the same for EVERY permanent member of the security council. Everyone has their own self interests. It really sucks how the system works.

Originally posted by Strangerous
Pavil - that logic only seems to apply when the UN disagrees with the US.

Look up the amount of times the US has used its vote to veto resolutions against Israel - do you think the system is all wrong in that instance? The US never bleats about the UN when it suits them / votes their way.

The whole UN system was designed around concensus, without that no approval is given and any prohibited/unapproved action illegal. That's the system - it's doing what it was designed to do.

You are comparing apples and oranges. China and Russia did not either abstain nor veto Resolution 1696. They voted in the affirmative and helped draft it. In fact the UN, at least as far as 1696 is concerned, did "agree" with the US as all 5 permanent members and 13 of the 14 temporary members agreed that 1696 was the course to take in regards to Iranian enrichment of uranium. Is that not the consensus that you speak of?

Then 2 permanent members of the UNSC change their minds, which they are entitled to. Still their actions undermine the UNSC as a force not to be taken lightly. Iran thumbs their nose at the UNSC and we are supposed to believe it is even more relevent today? Why?

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Strangerous
Pavil - that logic only seems to apply when the UN disagrees with the US.

Look up the amount of times the US has used its vote to veto resolutions against Israel - do you think the system is all wrong in that instance? The US never bleats about the UN when it suits them / votes their way.

The whole UN system was designed around concensus, without that no approval is given and any prohibited/unapproved action illegal. That's the system - it's doing what it was designed to do.

You are comparing apples and oranges. China and Russia did not either abstain nor veto Resolution 1696. They voted in the affirmative and helped draft it. In fact the UN, at least as far as 1696 is concerned, did "agree" with the US as all 5 permanent members and 13 of the 14 temporary members agreed that 1696 was the course to take in regards to Iranian enrichment of uranium. Is that not the consensus that you speak of?

Then 2 permanent members of the UNSC change their minds, which they are entitled to. Still their actions undermine the UNSC as a force not to be taken lightly. Iran thumbs their nose at the UNSC and we are supposed to believe it is even more relevent today? Why?

Acutally, he is talking about the current situation and the fact that China and Russia opposes sanctions as well as the EU having doubts and wants more time to talk.

The political climate has changed and the UN is to inflexible to change with the times.
The UN needs a major overhaul starting with the security council the right to veto needs to be canned. The UN may need a new approach to dealing with the political climate that is emerging.
Should the UN deal with the EU or Europen countries seprately ?
Should the UN deal with the WTO ?

There needs to be more emphasis placed on regional solutions rather then the whole world trying to solve problems that are unqie to the region. Fresh blood is needed at the top perhaps Powell or Clinton could head the UN. Finally the concept of Peacekeeping needs to be reviewed and improved on.

Originally posted by MasterRegal
Acutally, he is talking about the current situation and the fact that China and Russia opposes sanctions as well as the EU having doubts and wants more time to talk.

I am aware of what he is referring to. As far as I have read and heard, the U.S. U.K. France and Germany, 4/6ths of the 5+1 talks, are all pretty much on the same page. Don't know how the "Big 3" of the EU plays in the rest of the EU. Russia and China are the parties that are giving mixed signals as of now.

Article 41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

UN Charter
I am also aware that the Security Council left the 1696 threat of sanctions to be determined by further action by the S.C. I am willing to let further diplomacy try to get a peaceful resolution. But, very shortly a decsion will have to be made if there is not progress on a solution. What exactly does Iran want in return for stopping it's enrichment of uranium? The council was pretty explicit that Iran must stop it's enrichment of uranium, was it not?

If you are going to invoke Article 41 in your resolution to a country, you better be willing to back it up. lest you lose credibility.

My point is that if the S.C. is to be taken at is name, and it is totally ignored by a country on the issue such as we see with Iran and its' ambigious if not dual-use nuclear program, what clout will it have in the future? Making sure the NPT is upheld is one area where the UN better get it right. The alternatives are not very promising for anyone.

Originally posted by xpert11
The political climate has changed and the UN is to inflexible to change with the times.
The UN needs a major overhaul starting with the security council the right to veto needs to be canned. The UN may need a new approach to dealing with the political climate that is emerging.
Should the UN deal with the EU or Europen countries seprately ?
Should the UN deal with the WTO ?

There needs to be more emphasis placed on regional solutions rather then the whole world trying to solve problems that are unqie to the region. Fresh blood is needed at the top perhaps Powell or Clinton could head the UN. Finally the concept of Peacekeeping needs to be reviewed and improved on.

I have to agree. I think reform is needed. The veto power needs to be either eliminated or modified. I think the permanent members should be eliminated in place of semi-permanent members which are determined by GDP and military power (today it will be U.S., China, India, Japan, and Germany), who will be elected every 10 years. The other ten members will be elected as usual every two years. The EU will remain as a seperate entity and not as one in the UN until a Consitution is ratified and sovereignty is decleared.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by MasterRegal]

Originally posted by MasterRegal

I have to agree. I think reform is needed. The veto power needs to be either eliminated or modified. I think the permanent members should be eliminated in place of semi-permanent members which are determined by GDP and military power (today it will be U.S., China, India, Japan, and Germany), who will be elected every 10 years. The other ten members will be elected as usual every two years. The EU will remain as a seperate entity and not as one in the UN until a Consitution is ratified and sovereignty is decleared.

The current permanent members of the UNSC will remain, basing it on mainly economic stregnth will not work, as well as none of them will willingly give up their seat. Russia, UK and France are all 1st generation members of the nuclear club and as such, must be included. That is besides their still formidable militaries and long standing ties with many countries around the globe, Lebanon with France for example.

That being said, some changes to need to occur as times warrant. For example, Brazil and India and Germany for sure, maybe even Indonesia and Nigeria all make very compelling cases for being permanent members of of the Security Council. I will leave it up to the powers that be if any new permanent members gain the "veto", too many cooks to get unanamious action done.

Even with those changes, the UN Security Council will still likely be "all bark" and "no bite". Hard to get even the 5 main members to act in unison as we are now seeing, even when it is a very important matter.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by MasterRegal

I have to agree. I think reform is needed. The veto power needs to be either eliminated or modified. I think the permanent members should be eliminated in place of semi-permanent members which are determined by GDP and military power (today it will be U.S., China, India, Japan, and Germany), who will be elected every 10 years. The other ten members will be elected as usual every two years. The EU will remain as a seperate entity and not as one in the UN until a Consitution is ratified and sovereignty is decleared.

The current permanent members of the UNSC will remain, basing it on mainly economic stregnth will not work, as well as none of them will willingly give up their seat. Russia, UK and France are all 1st generation members of the nuclear club and as such, must be included. That is besides their still formidable militaries and long standing ties with many countries around the globe, Lebanon with France for example.

That being said, some changes to need to occur as times warrant. For example, Brazil and India and Germany for sure, maybe even Indonesia and Nigeria all make very compelling cases for being permanent members of of the Security Council. I will leave it up to the powers that be if any new permanent members gain the "veto", too many cooks to get unanamious action done.

Even with those changes, the UN Security Council will still likely be "all bark" and "no bite". Hard to get even the 5 main members to act in unison as we are now seeing, even when it is a very important matter.

I agree with you and that's why you will have to abolish the Security Council and rebuild it. The permanent members were all named so because of their political, economic and military power at the time of its implementation after WW II. We live in 2006 and the world is a different place than it used to be.

I say increase the council to 25 members to allow diversity and abolish the veto power.

The United Nations serves a useful purpose. It is a forum where both large and small powers can meet regularly and discuss problems between each other. More importantly, the UN is the combined operations medium through which much good work is accomplished. The World Health Organization, the UNICEF children programs, and a hundred other organizations that serve the higher aspirations of mankind. As its supporters often remind, if there was no UN today, we would have to invent one.

A major power like the SC Big 5 and some others now, like Germany, Japan, India, and South Korea, will not be bullied into some action they do not believe is in their own interest. Countries are always tempted to posture and to act as if they are the source of light and their opponents are the source of dark. Most everyone who is well informed sees that for what it is. Which does not make it less potent.

I have no idea why America has such a long memory. I don’t feel my own honor was injured by dissenting young men who went to Canada. As long as the number was not too high, it seemed to me to ignore it would be the wisser approach. Yet, in the 1990s, a fellow came back from Canada after 30 years absence, and the US government promptly arrested him and was about to prosecute him until wiser heads prevailed.

We steadfastly refuse to make an accommodation with Cuba. From 1959 to 2006. 47 years of embargo. We are into our 10th president and we seem to be genetically incapable to act neighborly to the 3rd closest country to us. In 1979, radical youth largely inspired by America’s long support of the Shah who ran a brutal regime, took the American Embassy in Tehran and held its 50 odd occupants hostage for 444 days. Released on January 20, 1981, as part of the Inauguration Ceremony on the Capitol steps. It could be argued the Iranian students caused the defeat of Jimmy Carter to win a second term. Talk about the world being changed forever! And that was pure serendipity. But here we are, in 2006, and we still have not resumed normal relations with Iran after 37 years. The world is passing us by, and we sit here, claiming to be the last standing super power. Of what worth is that status if you cannot talk to people around the world. Fantastic! A self-imposed crippled super power. Wow!

I could go on. We don’t like Kim Jong Il. So we don’t talk to North Korea.
We don’t like Hugo Chavez so we won’t talk with Venezuela. Or Bolivia. Or Peru. Or maybe Chile. Geez. Who are we injuring? Isn’t this called hubris? Don’t we have too much of it? How many times will we shoot ourselves in the foot. We won’t talk to Hamas despite being democratically elected. So much for democracy when it is push to shove time. We wont talk to Hezbollah because they have found a niche in which they seem to be secure from our influence.

After this adventure in Iraq which I have labeled the Second Punitive Expedition to Iraq, we say the current administration has succeeded in dismembering the only counter-veiling force to Iran. Where once Iraq was the off-set to Iran, now it is over. We cannot reassemble Iraq any more than the egg in Humpty Dumpty could be reassembled. Our best hope for Iraq post March 18, 2003, is a loose confederation. Iran coupled with Syria will be, indeed, after the debacle Israel sustained in Lebanon you could say, are, the hegemonic powers in the Middle East. This is the Bush43 legacy.


[edit on 9/2/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
...the UN is the combined operations medium through which much good work is accomplished. The World Health Organization, the UNICEF children programs, and a hundred other organizations that serve the higher aspirations of mankind. As its supporters often remind, if there was no UN today, we would have to invent one.

I'm sorry but this is not at all true. The UN has good PR but their actual conduct is catastrophic. you mentioned UNICEF, how does it compare to

abcnews.go.com...

www.boston.com...

?

strange you think the WHO does so much good, need i mention Codex Alimentarius, which is basically designed to take away our right to eat what we want in quantities we deem necessary or useful?

AER bill to outlaw supplements ? - ATS medical forum

if you click one of the links in my first post in the thread, you'll notice that Coenzyme Q10 is supposedly banned as a supplement - yet our bodies produce several hundred milligrams a day and heaven forbid we treat fatigue with a natural compound rather than Prozac, Zoloft or any other cash cow with a list of side efffects longer than my arm.

the UN continuously blunders from one disaster to the next, the managed to execute Srebrenica, a so called safe-haven, which was then taken by milita and 7000+ people murdered. the UN effectively rounded them up, yet no-one's talking about responsibility here, i mean they're the good guys who're suppsed to save the world, right? Oil-for-Food:, a quarter of the enormous revenue was taken by a few people within the UN, no problem if they're lining their pockets till they burst while enforcing a murderous embargo (or even blockade) on Iraq, which cost far too many people's lives they're the good guys, right? conflict of interest???


name me one recent, successful UN operation which did NOT result in an impoverished and desolated country being ravaged by corruption and indefintitely occupied by various UN forces? which brings me to my last point: their apparently systematic abuse of status, they sided with the serbian milita on the balkans, then with the KLA in Kosovo and finally, with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Is the concept sound? imho, monoplized power on a global scale == world government. is their execution remotely accebtable? you be the judge. considering the severity of their 'mistakes' i think it's only fair to question the entire organisation, isn't it?

the UN is useless because the members of the UN don't try

that and the security council having permanent members.

the UN should be an altruistic community, with the power to enforce laws by freezing a nation's funds.

The UN may have its problems but they are far from useless... many of their programs such as WHO and UNICEF have done excellent work. Why it does not seem to work is politics pure and simple... no different than our congress really. But still we would be far worse off without it...flawed or not its still better than nothing.

Originally posted by Masterrental
I say increase the council to 25 members to allow diversity and abolish the veto power.

While that sounds nice, it is a recipe for total inaction by the U.N.
It is almost impossible for the current SC of 15 to get unanimous approval on anything. Upping it to 25 will make it diverse alright, so diverse that you will never get 25-0 votes on anything short of an alien invasion.

Abolishing the veto by the Big Five would not work either. First off, they won't agree to it and second off there is a reason for it. Like it or not, every nation in the world really isn't equal. What really matters, especially for the UN, is that the Major Powers all agree on a course of action when World Security is threatened. They have been relatively few times that that has occurred. The veto exists so that a consensus between those Big Five can be hammered out. Only when the Big Five and the Security Council as a whole speak as one does anything ever get accomplished by the Security Council.

That is why it is disheartening to hear China and Russia back off of their previous position in regard to 1669, especially in the face of Iran's total lack of cooperation with the Security Council on this matter. There is a short window of time for progress to be made on Iranian enrichment of uranium and they the Security Council must take action.

Iran has learned the "rope a dope" strategy too well from North Korea. They cannot be allowed to delay, negotiate, delay, until the time they have a nuclear weapon. A real, verifiable solution must occur, the options if that does not happen are bleak.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Masterrental
I say increase the council to 25 members to allow diversity and abolish the veto power.

While that sounds nice, it is a recipe for total inaction by the U.N.
It is almost impossible for the current SC of 15 to get unanimous approval on anything. Upping it to 25 will make it diverse alright, so diverse that you will never get 25-0 votes on anything short of an alien invasion.

Which is why you abolish the veto. Resolutions need a majority vote, sanctions need a 2/3 majority and any resolution with the possiblilty of military action needs a 3/4 majority or unanimous vote. This way things can get done.

And giving five countries the right to veto which were the five major powers in 1945 is not the same in 2006 when the five major powers are no longer the same. The UN is stuck in the past and is the reason they need reform. Sure, the veto power has is advantages, but this needs to be worked out and the system modified.

[edit on 2-9-2006 by MasterRegal]

So.... a Security resolution could pass with all 5 "Vetos" voting nay and things would get done? You must have the buy of those powers for any action to have "teeth".

Originally posted by pavil
So.... a Security resolution could pass with all 5 "Vetos" voting nay and things would get done? You must have the buy of those powers for any action to have "teeth".

Oh please give me a break! I'm not writing the UN Voting System. You want me to, give me a few days and I'll reform the entire organization if you want.

Sorry, not trying to bust your chops, just pointing out flaws in your reccomendations. You have to have a majority at least of the permanent members agreeing to have get anything done.

Originally posted by pavil
Sorry, not trying to bust your chops, just pointing out flaws in your reccomendations. You have to have a majority at least of the permanent members agreeing to have get anything done.

Obviously there are flaws, these are not thought out reccomendations. If I had to, I'll rewrite the entire EU Consitution just to get them to agree to ratify it.

Originally posted by Long Lance

Is the concept sound? imho, monoplized power on a global scale == world government. is their execution remotely accebtable? you be the judge. considering the severity of their 'mistakes' i think it's only fair to question the entire organisation, isn't it?

Somebody earlier asked me what I was talking about when I made my 'bus' comparison.
I Think Lance here understands what I was saying tho.
The UN is a VEHICLE being used to TRANSPORT us into a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. If you dont see the dangers of a one world government then I suggest you remember that the last person to want one of these openly was none other than Adolph Hitler.
Arent you glad that he didnt succeed? I sure know I am!
Now some may say the UN isnt about a one world government, and my retort would be simply that Hitler openly admitted what he wanted, the UN doesnt.
Which is scarier? The killer that tells you he is gonna get you, or the killer that tells you he is your friend?
Am I making any sense to anybody this time?



[edit on 2-9-2006 by 11Bravo]

Originally posted by 11Bravo

Originally posted by Long Lance

Is the concept sound? imho, monoplized power on a global scale == world government. is their execution remotely accebtable? you be the judge. considering the severity of their 'mistakes' i think it's only fair to question the entire organisation, isn't it?

Somebody earlier asked me what I was talking about when I made my 'bus' comparison.
I Think Lance here understands what I was saying tho.
The UN is a VEHICLE being used to TRANSPORT us into a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. If you dont see the dangers of a one world government then I suggest you remember that the last person to want one of these openly was none other than Adolph Hitler.
Arent you glad that he didnt succeed? I sure know I am!
Now some may say the UN isnt about a one world government, and my retort would be simply that Hitler openly admitted what he wanted, the UN doesnt.
Which is scarier? The killer that tells you he is gonna get you, or the killer that tells you he is your friend?
Am I making any sense to anybody this time?
[edit on 2-9-2006 by 11Bravo]

The killer who tells me he is going to kill me is more scarier than the killer who tells me he is my friend as I don't know he is the killer. I hope you understood that.

But anyway. The UN as a one world government? It is far from it, in fact they are only at step one and has been at step one for 60 years (forming a union). There is so much that needs to be done that the chances 192 countries are going to agree to such things is unlikely. As for using the UN as some "vehicle" to "transport" us to a one-world government, can you explain?

I know this post is off topic, but I'm just curious.